A simple experiment to see which part of the computer is used by davinci during rendering of a footage.Actually I use a Imac (late 2013 model) with 32GB of Ram, 3,5 Ghz Intel Core i 7, Nvidia Geforce GTX 780M 4 Gb.Looking at the speed I have see that during the rendering phase of a footage ( 4k BMRAW FILES) there is a critical difference between the framerate processed: during titles all made with FUSION the speed is very low 2,5- 3 fps, during the rendering of the rest of footage the speed encrease a lot (20- 25 fps).THE QUESTIONS ARE:1) why?2) I guess that Da Vinci uses different part of the hardware during the processing of different parts of the edited video as I see a bottle nech in the speed with Fusion usage3) I'd like to understand if I need for my new build (a PC not a Mac ) not only to have a mighty GPU (better two) but also a mighty CPU as I do think that there an evident difference that lies on different harware usage by DaVinciAny idea?

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

There's no simple answer. Fusion, being an old school generic compositor, is largely CPU-dependent (and frankly meant to run on a cluster of computers in a render farm). BMD has optimized a bit more for GPU acceleration in recent versions but Fusion is still a do-it-all application where everything goes through a pipeline meant for complete user customization as opposed to optimization. This makes it incredibly flexible at the expense of performance. You can solve this by caching Fusion clips as you work and then make sure to use this cache when you render (check the "Use render cached images" option in the Delivery page). Granted, there have been issues with the Fusion cache in the past and it might not always work as intended.

Resolve's Color page is almost the exact opposite, highly optimized for GPU use. The same goes for the Blackmagic Raw files you're using.

Last edited by roger.magnusson on Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

roger.magnusson wrote:There's no simple answer. Fusion, being an old school generic compositor, is largely CPU-dependent. BMD has optimized a bit more for GPU acceleration in recent versions but Fusion is still a do-it-all application where everything goes through a pipeline meant for complete user customization as opposed to optimization. This makes it incredibly flexible at the expense of performance. You can solve this by caching Fusion clips as you work and then make sure to use this cache when you render (check the "Use render cached images" option in the Delivery page). Granted, there have been issues with the Fusion cache in the past and it might not always work as intended.

Resolve's Color page is almost the exact opposite, highly optimized for GPU use. The same goes for the Blackmagic Raw files you're using.

Clear but if they dont optimize Fusion for GPUs we DO need also a proper mighty CUP along with mighty GPUs It's a pity that all the parts of DaVinci do not work in the same way but as different softwares assembled together. The titles with Fusion are very good and the problem is little as little are the titles normally BUT when you go to FX Effects or Noise reduction well the problem rises a lot in term of time for rendering as GPUs seem to improve ONLY Color...

PS If you use Nitrate by Film Convert for Color correction the speed of the rendering slow down dramatically BUT if you transfor the color correction made with Nitrate in a LUT (it's possible) and apply this lut to the footage the time of rendering sped up and this is an other mistery

If all you're using Fusion for is making non-animated titles, you can probably speed it up significantly by making them single frame and extending them either in Fusion using the Time Stretcher node or in the Edit page by creating a Compound Clip out of the Fusion clip and extending it using Change Clip Speed.

That way Fusion is only rendering the title frame once, instead of in each and every frame. You can still animate movement or transitions in the Edit page of course.

Francesco Bollorino wrote:PS If you use Nitrate by Film Convert for Color correction the speed of the rendering slow down dramatically BUT if you transfor the color correction made with Nitrate in a LUT (it's possible) and apply this lut to the footage the time of rendering sped up and this is an other mistery

Third party effects that use the OpenFX API are typically slow in Resolve unless the developers have followed BMD:s recommendations and implemented specific support for Resolve. It's annoying, but not a mystery.

Francesco Bollorino wrote:PS If you use Nitrate by Film Convert for Color correction the speed of the rendering slow down dramatically BUT if you transfor the color correction made with Nitrate in a LUT (it's possible) and apply this lut to the footage the time of rendering sped up and this is an other mistery

Third party effects that use the OpenFX API are typically slow in Resolve unless the developers have followed BMD:s recommendations and implemented specific support for Resolve. It's annoying, but not a mystery.

It means that transoforming the color correction in a LUT and applying it to the footage we work under BMD specification even if the work on footage is the same as final result

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

Sampling a couple of your YouTube videos, it seems you have about 15 seconds of titles at the start and 5 seconds at the end, or around 20 seconds of titles per video. Which you say on your older system renders at around 10% of real-time speed.

So it takes around 3 minutes to render titles on your older system for one of your videos. I expect with a mid-range system like I have (see my signature) it would render in less than half the time.

But even at the slower speed of your older system, why is 3 minutes of render time significant with an average of 1-2 videos per week on your channel? You don't have to sit and watch your videos render. I doubt that you have a fast turnaround time requirement like a photographer at a major sports event. Even if your system were so slow it needed to render overnight, would that be an issue?

Michael_Andreas wrote:Sampling a couple of your YouTube videos, it seems you have about 15 seconds of titles at the start and 5 seconds at the end, or around 20 seconds of titles per video. Which you say on your older system renders at around 10% of real-time speed.

So it takes around 3 minutes to render titles on your older system for one of your videos. I expect with a mid-range system like I have (see my signature) it would render in less than half the time.

But even at the slower speed of your older system, why is 3 minutes of render time significant with an average of 1-2 videos per week on your channel? You don't have to sit and watch your videos render. I doubt that you have a fast turnaround time requirement like a photographer at a major sports event. Even if your system were so slow it needed to render overnight, would that be an issue?

I need a faster system becouse often I need to make series of videos in short time and with average lenght of 30-40 minutes each and as Davinci dont allow to work to an other edit footage when in render phase I do need to work the the best system possible (in term of time of finish the process) considering that all my new videos will 4k. I perfectly know that I could choise a cheaper midrange setup but I'd like to buy something near definitive for the next 5 year to come. It's a choise expensive I know BUT starting from the point that I am a Mac user (from 1984 to date) and I will travel to WINPC platform with the cost of an actual Imac PRO (around 6-7000€) I wll buy a real beast of PC. Do you understand? I do think that you can travel with a Subaru (like mine) very well in safe but if you like cars, a drive on italian mountain roads with a Ferrari Roma it is a real other story.... and Yes I'd like to edit my videos with a Ferrari

PS: As money is AN OBJECT for me of course my new WINPC beast will be bought with carefull attetions to detials and choise of component not out of date ( to be claer the GPUs will be the new ones from NVIDIA or AMD due to be on market aour july I guess and hope)

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

While you could do your rendering on another, probably far cheaper, machine while editing, I understand that you want a beast. So please check the postings by Carsten Sellberg in this forum, he seems to be the most knowledgeable guy around here when it comes to PC hardware.

OTOH, no machine you buy today will be really up-to-date in five years. And, remember, even a Ferrari is no fun when pulling a camper, i.e. it will still be blocked by rendering as long as BM doesn't enable background rendering

Francesco Bollorino wrote:PS If you use Nitrate by Film Convert for Color correction the speed of the rendering slow down dramatically BUT if you transfor the color correction made with Nitrate in a LUT (it's possible) and apply this lut to the footage the time of rendering sped up and this is an other mystery

If you match the Nitrate color-correction with the controls in Resolve, the render speed will go up even more. Just sayin'.

Francesco Bollorino wrote:PS If you use Nitrate by Film Convert for Color correction the speed of the rendering slow down dramatically BUT if you transfor the color correction made with Nitrate in a LUT (it's possible) and apply this lut to the footage the time of rendering sped up and this is an other mystery

If you match the Nitrate color-correction with the controls in Resolve, the render speed will go up even more. Just sayin'.

the solution is simpler: make a LUT from NITRATE mds, save it, dont save the mods , reopen Davinci and apply the LUT created

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

Uli Plank wrote:While you could do your rendering on another, probably far cheaper, machine while editing, I understand that you want a beast. So please check the postings by Carsten Sellberg in this forum, he seems to be the most knowledgeable guy around here when it comes to PC hardware.

OTOH, no machine you buy today will be really up-to-date in five years. And, remember, even a Ferrari is no fun when pulling a camper, i.e. it will still be blocked by rendering as long as BM doesn't enable background rendering

I'm follwing the indication of Carsten in building my new beast including the idea to buy now a provisonal GPU and around mid 2020 To buy the definitive when on the market

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

Uli Plank wrote:OTOH, no machine you buy today will be really up-to-date in five years. And, remember, even a Ferrari is no fun when pulling a camper, i.e. it will still be blocked by rendering as long as BM doesn't enable background rendering

THIS is the real bottle nech of Davinci and I hope the guys from BMD will solve the problem I do think that with background work the software could be really "THE ONE"

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

Given your new information that sometimes you want to render a video while working on another one, I think Roger's idea of having a second computer doing the render is a good one.

Expanding on that, I suggest that instead of getting an interim GPU, that you buy a gaming laptop with a capable GPU, perhaps an NVIDIA 1660 with 6 GB GPU and with 16GB of motherboard RAM, for example this one: https://www.microcenter.com/product/611 ... ter---back Put the second license for Resolve Studio that you received with your BMPCC 4K on that laptop. Also have an external 1 TB SSD. If you're traveling at a conference, you can copy your footage to the SSD, edit a project and start it rendering while you go back to another conference meeting. Possibly then upload to YouTube overnight, if the hotel WiFi allows it.

When you eventually buy your "beast", you can use your laptop as a render machine at home. You can use the SSD but you might want to figure out how to setup a server so you can share files without having to copy to external drives, perhaps on your "beast" if that's possible (not sure as I haven't done it myself). In the meantime, using the laptop could better inform your purchasing decision on the "beast".

Here's an offer that may help you decide. Make a sample project, then export the .drp and put that file on a filesharing site like Dropbox or Google Drive along with any stills needed to make your titles and any special LUTs you use. I can try that project out on my desktop (see my signature) below using some footage from my BMPCC 4K at whatever compression you use. I can also try it out on an older laptop I have with has similar specs to the one I suggested (1060 GPU and i7-6700HQ). I can let you know how long each machine takes to render the file.

Here is a Review of the Lenovo Legion Y540-17IRH as linked to in a previous post. In this review is used a Intel Core i5-9300H CPU. And under 'cons' it say: loud fans under load. In the link in a previous post comes it with a Intel Core i7-9750H CPU. I wonder what will happen with the sound of the fans under load, with a more powerfull CPU?

Carsten Sellberg wrote:And under 'cons' it say: loud fans under load. In the link in a previous post comes it with a Intel Core i7-9750H CPU. I wonder what will happen with the sound of the fans under load, with a more powerfull CPU?

Wonder how loud "loud" is. Whether it's fighter-jet-taking-off loud, or just loud enough to notice when it switches on but you end up tuning it out over time, or somewhere in between. I have an MSI gaming laptop, if I do this exercise I'll see how loud it is.

Another option for the OP would be to use his current system as a render machine and his "beast" to do the editing. Would have to work out how to share files/project but that could mean he'd need a less powerful/expensive "beast".

Michael_Andreas wrote:Another option for the OP would be to use his current system as a render machine and his "beast" to do the editing. Would have to work out how to share files/project but that could mean he'd need a less powerful/expensive "beast".

I DO THINK that I need one only PC as mighty as possible thsi si what I have decided the real only problem is about the GPUs to be used but I do think taht the new NVIDIA Ampere will be my choise hen on sale in mid year. I perfectly know that it's not possible to run an editing and a rendering in the same time but use two PC it's a gimnic affair not for me also considering the space a have in my office to work

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

The rendering PC can be completely headless (without a monitor) so would hardly take any space. I understand the will to drive a Ferrari and I usually get the high end stuff when it's reasonable and when it actually helps the end result.

Getting a "beast" computer to edit talking heads wouldn't help me get a better end result but then again, neither would having it in 4K. But I know what you mean and I'm sometimes guilty of this type of thinking too.

I wonder if professional editors would consider having separate machines to do renders a "gimmick affair". Perhaps Marc Wielage or Walter Volpatto will chime in.

You've been talking on the forum about replacing your computer for a couple of years now. I would not be surprised if you're still talking about it two years from now. There will always be some rumored new CPU or GPU to be announced later. When NVIDIA makes its announcement there will be a rumor of an upcoming AMD, and then a new CPU, etc, etc.

Michael_Andreas wrote:I wonder if professional editors would consider having separate machines to do renders a "gimmick affair". Perhaps Marc Wielage or Walter Volpatto will chime in.

You've been talking on the forum about replacing your computer for a couple of years now. I would not be surprised if you're still talking about it two years from now. There will always be some rumored new CPU or GPU to be announced later. When NVIDIA makes its announcement there will be a rumor of an upcoming AMD, and then a new CPU, etc, etc.

The main problem was for me to wait for the new Mac Pro hoping in a "decent" price. It was not so So I began to think about a PC gear of adequate power similar (+ or -) to the one delivered by Mac Pro 2019 too much dear for me and fpr most of us I think (really sorry about as I love Apple but not its price politics).This is the only one reason of the delay of my decision.Begining now the build I will try to buy the best (inside my budget) and so I hve stated to try to buy a 2020 machine at the top rated possible.I perfectly know the there is aways something better but I think I can try to buy the best now not the future best always pending but impossible to reachThese are my reasons and I do thinkthey are clear

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1

For 4k the 2080ti with 11 GB should be enough, with 6k you might run in to out of memory issues.We use 16 GB GPU's (VEGA FE's and Radeon VII's) for that reason (and the low price and the high memory bandwidth).

MishaEngel wrote:For 4k the 2080ti with 11 GB should be enough, with 6k you might run in to out of memory issues.We use 16 GB GPU's (VEGA FE's and Radeon VII's) for that reason (and the low price and the high memory bandwidth).

Actually my new PC will mount 5700XT as provisional GPU.I hope ASAP to have news about the new 2020 GPU from AMD and NVIDIA in oder to make my definitive choise also following your suggestions about GPU Ram

Francesco BollorinoEditor of Psychiatry on line ItaliaThematic Channel on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/PsychiatryonlineITA1